posted at 8:03 pm on January 17, 2011 by Allahpundit

The perfect capper to a day that began with a story in the Times insisting that it wasn’t really “the media” that built this phony narrative, it was disgraceful moron Clarence “Supercop” Dupnik. Which is true, to some extent: Having the lead state investigator in the case mumbling about Rush Limbaugh every five minutes was bound to confuse casual news viewers into thinking there was some evidence in his possession suggesting Loughner had a right-wing agenda. But of course, it’s precisely because of his willingness to mumble along those lines that Dupnik became an overnight media darling, with Diane Sawyer corralling him for interviews and Olbermann setting him up for segments on “Countdown.”

The result: Fully 35 percent of the public now believes that Palin’s months-old, otherwise extremely obscure midterm map with the crosshairs on it is not only linked to this case but that it actually bears some culpability for Loughner’s mania. So egregiously unfair is that result that even the solidly left-wing Salon writes of it, “that number should be 0 percent.” The partisan breakdown:

Fully 56 percent of Democrats think the map is at least somewhat to blame, and even 12 percent of conservatives think it bears a “great deal” of responsibility. Tea partiers aren’t immune from the disinformation either:

That’s the core of her base, and even 16 percent of these people think there’s some sort of culpability. Not surprisingly, the less education you have, the more likely you are to be misinformed:

ABC has a new poll of its own out tonight showing that 78 percent approve of Obama’s handling of the aftermath of the shooting compared to just 30 percent approval for Palin (versus 46 percent who disapprove). But look back at the CNN numbers above: Between the heavy breathing over her use of the term “blood libel” and the mind-boggling extent to which people have been misled about her role — or rather, non-role — in all of this, how could her approval numbers be otherwise? Thirty-five percent of the public must have watched her speech last Thursday morning and thought, “I can’t believe this woman who just inspired a mass murder thinks people should feel bad for her.”

The most interesting numbers to me of all of these are the ones among conservatives and Republicans who think she bears some sort of blame. Partly that’s because you would think their misimpression would have been corrected by now by their exposure to conservative media — either Fox or talk radio or blogs, etc. But that assumes that all of this is being driven by innocently mistaken impressions, which surely isn’t the case. Some of it, I suspect, is coming from centrist conservatives who loathe Palin and want to see her influence reduced before 2012 at all costs, and if that means kinda sorta blessing an Orwellian narrative about her alleged culpability in all this, well, hey — it’s for a greater good. She may not technically have influenced Loughner in reality, but she shouldn’t have used that crosshairs metaphor so holding her partly responsible is, shall we say, “rough justice.” I can’t prove that’s what’s happening, but then proof is no longer required before making charges, is it? The hard fact to take away from all this if you’re a Palin fan is that Scarborough’s probably right: She has been damaged by this, however unfairly, and it’s going to make it that much harder for her to win back independents and centrists if she runs next year. That’s what happens when 35 percent of the public is as politically aware as Joan Rivers.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The Jennifer Rubin who took a left turn to assume Right Turn? Another Palin-scandalized elite. Anyway, as a logician, she’s a bust, and like many elites, can’t face the scary clarity of Palin’s logic.

But here you have the Left in a nutshell. To demagogue an issue while out of power, as in the debt ceiling, but then once in power to adopt it (Iraq, Afghanistan, all the same) — in this case after aggravating the conditions of debt so that a debt-ceiling raise becomes a compelling, exigent need (having demolished any reasonable course of fiscal management and responsibility that might have averted the crisis they once so mendaciously preached about) — is just, once again, seeking opportunity in crisis.

Correct, the economic conditions are different than 2006: they’re worse. Why are they worse? Total fiscal squalor: a reckless “stimulus” that did nothing but exponentialize debt, a healthcare “reform” that did nothing but send tremors of uncertainty and liability throughout industry, and massive bureaucratic regulatory overreach smothering business growth and risk. Now the only “responsible” thing to do is raise the debt ceiling. A problem we created so that we impose our “solution” – more of the same. It’s a leftist paradigm, a grand and wicked farce with no end but one of greater centralized power and a weaker nation forced to seek succour from that power.

Of course, to an elitist like Rubin (I’m familiar with her CV) it is all “crazy talk.” There is nothing this tribe loathes more than such imputations against their educated and ruling class cohort. But there is a wider swath of Americans with adductive skills of reasoning and increasingly aware of the possibility of malicious intent.

I find this line by Rubin interesting:

“Conservatives generally think President Obama’s policies are terribly wrong and that he unwisely placed other priorities above the economic recovery.”

Really, is that what conservatives “generally” think? And why, if we accept that Obama is a bright and educated man, would he assiduously pursue such wrong policies and choose such unwise priorities in the face of public opposition and preponderant proof of failure? How can one not consider intention?

Unfortunately for Rubin and others, this is a narrative they can’t control, and which of course they condemn. Count me among those who have no doubt of malicious intent. But I cut my teeth on Leftist malice. I spent 20 years around people, from college lounges to Berkeley living rooms, who talked longingly and determinedly of the ruin of America, and who celebrated 9/11. Ayers’ “Prairie Fire” and Cloward-Piven’s manifesto are blueprints for ruin and re-formulation. “Crazy talk”? More like common coin among the Left. Obama came from this same ideological foment.

For Palin to point this out, quite civilly and totally contained within the logical framework of Obama’s own words and actions, is both basic politics and a public service. If Obama would like to make his case for why he made his choices in defiance of logic and outcome, he’s got a bully pulpit to do so. It’s called free speech.

Isn’t it inspiring how the Left has discovered “civility” and “decency”? Don’t allow your thrill and relief to be cynically tempered by the fact they’ve lost the House and face hostile inquiries, or that their new piety over discourse follows their spectacular orgy of slander at Sarah Palin. Better late than never, right? We should be grateful, right?

Too late and too bad, juveniles. No one’s buying it, and no one’s shutting up, least of all Palin.

Remember, O’bama set an alltime record in 2008 when 70% of high school dropouts voted for him. That’s 9% higher than the previous alltime record-set when 61% of the same mental midgets voted for Algore in 2000.

Didn’t James Carville start the “scorched earth” mentality in politics? Seems like that really began to be out in the open in the 90′s. Maybe I just don’t remember other examples prior to then.

karenhasfreedom on January 18, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Yep, he’s a Poster Boy for that stuff. He can get away with saying what he does because he belongs to the correct political party. He used that term in the 1990s, but also promised a “scorched earth policy” after Bush stole the 2000 election.

Some Carville gems:

When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a b*tch an anvil.

If a R said the same thing, Carville would probably accuse them of endorsing drowning. Or waterboarding perhaps?

You can call the dogs in, wet the fire, and leave the house. The hunt’s over. – on Obama winning the White House”

So the 2008 election contest was a “hunt”? Be civil, James.

And my 2 fave Carville quotes, which show why he is so Respected by the Democrats:

Honesty is one’s primary duty in public political discourse, not civility. Civility in fact, may merely be censorship, and therefor service dishonesty, and therefor tyranny. One must be able to call for any appropriate action against any threat to life, liberty and property. One must be able to speak ill of tyrants, criminals, and all who serve both. There is no moral mandate to speak well of them, in fact, there is a moral mandate to speak ill of them, and as vigorously, loudly, and widely as possible. There is a moral mandate to explain to the people why those who govern us, are indeed tyrants. And there is a moral mandate to advocate as vigorously as possible for appropriate action against them.

It is immoral to advocate peaceably for peace when there is a moral mandate to advocate belligerently for war.

It is immoral to value peace over all means necessary to protect life, liberty and property.

When I see some of these people saying that Palin is not “Presidential” or electible, I have to laugh.

I visited Washington’s home of Mount Vernon growing up. One of the things that always stuck with me was that he was not really a politican. He was, in his own words, a farmer. They said that when he was an old man, if you were to ask him about his life, he wouldn’t even mention that he was the first President, he would say he was a farmer.

The other President that comes to mind, that is not “Presidential” in the conventional sense is Teddy Roosevelt.

What people should be talking about when it comes to Palin is where does she stand on various issues. I have yet to see a liberal stand she has taken, and with the left going for the jugular with every fiber in their being for every news story no matter how far the stretch, I doubt she will ever reach out her hand to these people. I like her chances…

When I see some of these people saying that Palin is not “Presidential” or electible, I have to laugh.
jeffn21

People say those things about Palin because Palin says unintelligent, shallow and fallacious things.
If your read her recent It’s time to get tough with Iran opinion in USA Today, then you have evidence that she doesn’t know what the heck she’s talking about. While she is happily yapping about what we’re doing that’s wrong, she shows that she doesn’t know what it is that we’re doing.
to top that she doesn’t have a thing to offer as to what we should do. What she does offer is far less than what we’re already doing.

People laugh at her because she’s ignorant and yet loud.
George Washington was educated and experienced and quiet.